Portions Out the Window

 

If you frequently visit the drive through at Tim Horton's, today this might seem true. Starting today
standard cup sizes have changed. Instead of introducing a 'new' extra large size, each size has shifted
down one to make way for a larger serving. What was a small is now extra small, large is now
considered a medium and so on. The good news for coffee lovers is you are getting more for your
money (as sizes will increase but prices remain). However, the critical dietitian in me ponders about the message this, and other commercial portion sizes, imply regarding health and weight.

Let's first consider the example we have demonstrating healthy eating, Eating Well with Canada's Food Guide. It gives us two references for beverage size. One for juices, the other for milk. A standard serving of juice is 4oz, and milk 8oz, or the equivalent of a (now) extra small at Tim's. Judging by these new portion sizes and speaking in terms of health, what we may consider extra small is really more like the ideal portion size. So how much exactly is a new 24oz extra large? At 710ml it's a total daily recommendation of milk for a young teenager. Just under half the bare minimum of what most need for overall fluids each day. And probably the easiest visual would be about 4 standard size coffees.

It's likely that people will continue to order according to serving size name, and not how much the serving actually contains. Calories in coffee and tea arenegligiblee, so it's more the caffeine and what you add to the beverage that is going to matter. When it comes to the caffeine, Health Canada tells us as adults that 400mg or the equivalent of three 8oz cups of brewed coffee should be the max we take in per day. It's less for those who are younger, pregnant or breastfeeding. Taste buds are programmed to usual habits, meaning any change will taste different at first. A now large coffee with the former large fixings just isn't going to taste the same. The likely solution for many? Adding more fixin's to get that same great taste. More cream, sugar or milk, plus the same usual portion, equals more calories without realizing it. A double double might just turn into a triple triple with you even knowing it.

Obesity, like exaggerated portion size, may be becoming the norm too. True or false, an individual is
considered obese only when they are 100 or more pounds overweight? Obesity is usually defined by a BMI, or body mass index, which takes into account your height and weight. It actually doesn't take
many extra pounds for an individual to be considered medically obese. So the answer is false. But if
you said the answer was true you're not alone. Most people will overestimate height and underestimate weight. Even I am sometimes surprised when I calculate a BMI and it determines someone as obese, when in actual fact they look overweight. Or at least what society has portrayed us to believe as overweight. Whether we want to admit it or not, like portion size, we have  non-consciously shifted our views of weight as well. It's not that we don't think obesity and portions are a problem, rather we are programmed in a super-sized society to think that larger is the norm.

Will I have a Timmy's coffee now and then? Of course. Eating is also about everything in moderation. However, with the portions increasing I am going to try and make a conscious decision to 'downsize' from my regular medium size to the (still medium) new small. Same taste, same calories, and more money in my pocket.

As see in The Telegram January 23, 2012

Child Food Marketing

    
According to information released last week by the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC),
Canadians say obesity is the most important health issue facing our children and youth. Demonstrating this is the fact that in November 2011, one in four children across Canada were overweight or obese. In addition, the PHAC has also stated, 60% of people feel the federal government isn't doing enough to deal with the problem and want them to do more.

Perhaps we can modify and monitor the advertisement of food and beverages we have towards children. It may not sound like an important piece to the obesity crisis, but in actual fact it is. You see, foods children eat and even more so what they ask their parents to buy, and then they ultimately eat, are often influenced by advertising. Many of the ads are focused on products that are high in calories, fat, sugar and/or salt too. Advertising of unhealthy foods has not been proven to have a direct impact on childhood obesity but it certainly seems like there could be a connection. We know that it can contribute to poor food choices, ultimately leading to excess weight gain.

The results of the PHAC study indicate most Canadians strongly approve bans on junk food marketing aimed at children. 53% feel strongly to ban all marketing of high fat, sugar or salt foods aimed directly at kids and youth. 60% feel the marketing should be restricted. We certainly aren't the only ones that feel that way. Several European countries have voluntary and regulatory approaches already in place.  Ireland bans the use of celebrities or sports figures to promote food or drinks. Norway has banned radio and TV advertising to children and during children's programming. France also has a law against advertising unhealthy foods on TV with fines for those who choose not to follow. There is no such requirement for Canada yet, however since 1980, and with a few exemptions, Quebec has banned advertising to children thirteen and under, including the advertisement of junk food.

Sure we can start off as voluntary, but we all know that if something gets legislated it's more likely to stick. Down the road, mandatory guidelines may have to be the answer. You see, along with many countries in Europe, the United States has voluntary approaches as well. A report from the Sunlight Foundation Reporting Group from the end of last year indicated media companies and major players in the food industry coordinated lobby efforts to ensure mascots like Tony the Tiger could still be used to help sell products. Last year alone over $37 million was spent in an effort to stop voluntary guidelines around the marketing of food to children in efforts to combat obesity. Big companies such as Nestle,  Kellogg, McDonalds, General Mills and more are amongst the list of participants. What's potentially upsetting is the fact that most of these companies are also major sources of campaign money for US congress members.

People are exposed to hundreds of media marketing messages every day. It's also thought we make
more than 200 decisions a day on food. As adults we have the ability to decipher hidden messages,
intent and ultimately make a sound decision based on fact and science for ourselves. Children are
vulnerable. Current advertising practices play an important role in shaping children's food and
beverage choices, preferences, dietary patterns, food-related attitudes, beliefs, values, behaviours and
health. Perhaps the regulation of marketing food and beverages to children is part of the obesity
answer.

As seen in The Telegram January 16, 2012